...if you learned a future history book would say "With the help of tens of trillions of nanobots,

Full stop. If advanced nanotechnology comes first then my above post is rendered obsolete. I do completely agree that an AI in possession of advanced nanotech assemblers will be able to take over the world.

So wiping out the Aztecs isn't enough, you wanted the Spaniards to quickly establish full control over the Mayan homelands as well?

I never argued that a hundred people from today, given machine guns, would have no chance to wipe out the roman Senate and kill the the roman consul. Which doesn't mean that an AI could do the same. But even if it was to wipe out Washington, that would not constitute world domination.

The Spaniards, with the the help of their Tlaxcallan allies, managed to kill the ruler and destabilize Aztec empire and their domination. Yet most of the Mesoamerican cultures were intact afterwards. It took over a hundred years to defeat those.

Anyway, that incident can't be compared with the Roman empire and much less with the world of today.

That seems to me like moving the goalposts...

You seem to have no clue what my goal was in the first place. I tried to exemplify the difficulties of taking over the world by an example that bears some similarity to the idea that an AI might just take over the world. In reality it would be much more difficult for an AI to do the same due to its fragility and its technological and civilizatory dependencies.

Downvoted for the continuing rudeness, and the continuing whining about how people vote others.

I am not whining about voting behavior but that people who apparently try to be rational could be fooled that easily and act like a cult to protect their beliefs against the least amount of criticism.

Also downvoted for the aforementioned "moving the goalposts".

You are wrong and any amount of downvoting won't make you right.